1 line
No EOL
89 KiB
JSON
1 line
No EOL
89 KiB
JSON
[{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/","title":"Aron's Blog","description":null,"body":"Find all my projects here.\nThey are sorted by date, you can also filter by tags.\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/master-thesis/","title":"Master's Thesis","description":null,"body":"Master's Thesis: Human - Waste\nPlastics offer significant material benefits, such as durability and versatility, yet their\nwidespread use has led to severe environmental pollution and waste management\nchallenges. This thesis develops alternative concepts for collaborative participation in\nrecycling processes by examining existing waste management systems. Exploring the\nhistorical and material context of plastics, it investigates the role of making and hacking as\ntransformative practices in waste revaluation. Drawing on theories from Discard Studies,\nMaterial Ecocriticism, and Valuation Studies, it applies methods to examine human-waste\nrelationships and the shifting perception of objects between value and non-value. Practical\ninvestigations, including workshop-based experiments with polymer identification and\nmachine-based interventions, provide hands-on insights into the material properties of\ndiscarded plastics. These experiments reveal their epistemic potential, leading to the\nintroduction of novel archiving practices and knowledge structures that form an integrated\nmethodology for artistic research and practice. Inspired by the Materialstudien of the\nBauhaus Vorkurs, the workshop not only explores material engagement but also offers new\ninsights for educational science, advocating for peer-learning scenarios. Through these\napproaches, this research fosters a socially transformative relationship with waste,\nemphasizing participation, design, and speculative material reuse. Findings are evaluated\nthrough participant feedback and workshop outcomes, contributing to a broader discussion\non waste as both a challenge and an opportunity for sustainable futures and a material\nreality of the human experience.\n\n\n See the image archive yourself\n\n\n See the archive graph yourself\n\n\n Find the complete Repo on Forgejo\n\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/ballpark/","title":"Ballpark","description":null,"body":"Ballpark: 3D Environments in Unity\nImplemented in Unity, Ballpark is a Concept work for a collaborative 2-Player Game, where one player is a navigator with a third-person perspective and another player is a copilot, responsible for interaction with the environment – featuring mostly working physics, intelligent enemies, a gun, a grappling hook system for traversing the map, a 2D Interface for navigation and a health bar system. On top of the meanest cyberpunk vibes my past self was able to conjure.\nEnjoy!\n\n\nAs you can see, the design faces some questionable choices, but all mechanics are homemade from the ground up and I learned a lot. I often struggle to enjoy competitive games and think there is potential in a co-dependent game interface. During early testing, we often found that it enforces player communication since already the tutorial is quite hard to beat.\nDue to me being a leftie, perhaps not entirely smart, I gave player one the keyboard arrows to work with and player two the WASD keys and left and right mouse buttons for grappling and shooting. For the game, it has an interesting side effect, in that players are forced not only to interact through the differing information on each player's screen but also have to physically interact and coordinate the controls.\nAs you can perhaps see, the ball-rolling navigation is quite hard to use.\nIt is a purely physics-based system, where, depending on the materiality of the ball, its weight, and therefore its inertia will drastically change.\nOn small screens, the prototype version of the game is virtually impossible to control and several visual bugs within the viewport still obfuscate items when they are too close. Considering that virtually all the mechanics are written from scratch, with a follow-me camera, collision detection, smart moving agents, and a still very wonky-looking grappling gun, I still think it deserves a spot in this portfolio.\nFor this project I focused completely on the mechanics of the game, resulting in lots of used prefabs and readymade 3D Objects. Next time, I want to do that myself too.\nI enjoyed my stint into Unity a lot and am looking forward to creating my first VR application and would love to try out some form of mechanics where the user vision is completely obfuscated by VR and they have to carry their eyes as a handheld connected camera so that the players can move around the camera itself with their hands.\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/thesis/","title":"Bachelor Thesis","description":null,"body":"An online psycholinguistic study using reaction time\nLast year, I wrote my thesis during the pandemic. With the struggles our university had transitioning to online teaching, I selected a guided topic, although my initial dream was to start writing about my proposed plan for automated plastic recycling. You can read more about that here:\n\nI chose a project that wanted to examine the possibilities of a novel smart hearing protection device specifically designed for auditory hypersensitivity, which is often, but not always, and not exclusively a phenomenon visible in people with an autism spectrum disorder.\nA common reaction to this elevated sensitivity is stress and avoidance behavior, often leading to very awkward social situations and impairing the ability to take part in social situations.\nSchools are one such social situation and we all know the stress a noisy classroom can produce. Concentration is gone, and education, as well as essential skills like language reproduction, suffer.\nThere is lots of prior research on these fields, and there is some evidence that sensory information in people on the Autism spectrum is processed differently than in a neurotypical brain. It seems that a certain adaptability, needed to overcome noise issues and bridge asynchrony between auditory and visual sensory input, is reduced in some people on the Autism Spectrum.\nIn essence, my experiment was responsible for looking at neurotypical people and measuring any effect on language perception produced by varying the delay between auditory and visual input, as well as the loudness.\nHere, I had the possibility to conduct an entire reaction-time-based experiment with over 70 participants and went through all the struggles that come with proper science.\nI did extensive literature research, coded the experiment, and learned a lot about the reasons nobody really ever does reaction time-based studies like this via a common internet browser.\nIt was an almost 9 months long learning experience full of doing things I had never done before.\nI learned and got to love writing in Latex, had to learn JavaScript for the efficient serving of the stimuli, and R for the statistical analysis. I also got to brush up on my data visualization skills in Python and made some pretty graphs of the results.\nThe experiment is still working and online if you want to have a look at it. Be mindful though that measuring reaction speed every millisecond is important, which is why it makes heavy use of your browser cache and has been known to crash and defeat some not-so-tough computers.\n\n Try out the experiment yourself\n\nEven with writing alone I had extensive helpful feedback from my supervisors and learned a lot about scientific processes and associated considerations.\nThere was always the next unsolvable problem. Just one example was scientificity and ethical considerations clashing, data privacy against the accuracy of results. Since the machines participants participated on, were private devices, I was unable to know important data like their internet speed and provider, their type of GPU, and their type of external hardware. Turns out, for an auditory experiment, the type and setup of the speakers do play an important role and influence response speed.\nThe final version of my thesis has something around 80 pages, much of it utterly boring, but nevertheless important statistical analyses.\nIf you really want to, you can have a look at the whole thing here:\n\n Read the original Thesis\n\nI am a fan and proponent of open source and open science practices.\nSo here you can also find the rest of the project with the original source code.\nI am not yet where I want to be with my documentation practices, and it scares me a bit that anyone can now have a full grasp of all the mistakes I did, but I am throwing this out there as a practice step. I learned and gained a lot from looking at other people's projects and I strive to be open about my processes too.\nThe original video stimuli are not mine and I have no right releasing them, so they are omitted here.\n\n Find the complete Repo on Github\n\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/critical-philosophy-subjectivity/","title":"Critical Philosophy of Subjectivity","description":null,"body":"Forum entries from the Seminar: Critical Philosophy of Subjectivity 1: Michel Foucault\nOn Butler: Constituting norms =/= carrying normative responsibilities for their existence\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203499627\nPublication\n\n\nCitation from Butler, Page 51, citing Ewald, which is, in turn, interpreting Foucault:\n\nThe norm integrates anything which might attempt to go beyond it—nothing, nobody, whatever difference it might display, can ever claim to be exterior, or claim to possess an otherness which would actually make it other”\n(Norms, Discipline, and the Law, P.173)\n\nSuch a view suggests that any opposition to the norm is already\ncontained within the norm, and is crucial to its functioning.\nHere, for me, the entire futility of the approach later identified and described is condensed into a few sentences.\n\nHence, regulations that seek merely to curb certain specified activities (sexual harassment, welfare fraud, sexual speech) perform another activity that, for the most part, remains unmarked: the production of the parameters of personhood, that is, making persons according to abstract norms that at once condition and exceed the lives they make—and break.\nPage 56, final sentence\n\nThe idea that it is impossible to legislatively regulate norms without propelling, propagating, and carving them out deeper resonates with me, but at the same time, it has left me undecided on how to proceed.\nI understand the first citation to clearly be Ewald's interpretation of things and am not sure whether Foucault's careful circumvention of the term \"Norms\" is related to anticipation of this argument.\nFurther, I am not sure I share Ewald's interpretation; I see that the object \"othered\" by a norm is a constituent and necessary object for the norm, simply due to its \"comparative\" nature (p. 51, citation from Ewald).\nThe oppressed may well be as constituting of norms as the privileged, but this does not translate to a normative responsibility nor a pang of guilt in my opinion. The dangerous argument that the oppressed bear responsibility for their situation is too close for my taste. I would like to emphasize a clear cut between constituting and reinforcing a norm and thriving on it.\nYes, maybe that is a good location to make the cut: The normative and ethical pressure, or better, the guilt of complicity lies with the ones thriving BECAUSE of a norm and clearly not with those thriving DESPITE OF a norm.\nI would think that Butler makes a similar argument elsewhere, but as such, I was missing it here, resulting in a very bleak and hopeless situation where any struggle to change the status quo through legislation is doomed and inevitably propagates and reinvents stable unfair relations of power.\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Sunday 23. January 2022, 14:23\n\n\nOn Ewald: What, then, is a norm?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: François Ewald; Norms, Discipline, and the Law. Representations 1 April 1990; 30 138–161. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2928449\nPublication\n\n\nSome tiny details about norms that stuck out to me about the norm were that: 1: they are fictional and thus, an object conforming to a norm is not more meaningful than an object not conforming to a norm. 2: the entire given set comprises the norm, the deviations play a defining role in the formation of the norm itself (or an average).\np. 152: Under norm, 3 phenomena are subsumed: Discipline,\nless as a constraint, but more as a regulatory mechanism insurance,\nReducing objects to their relative occurrence, distributing risk. and standardization.\nThe norm has three defining features:\n\npositivism,\nas reliant on facts, which have an aura of objectivity around them.\nrelativity,\nthey are neither absolute nor universal, they have a scope, both in definition as a certain temporal extension.\npolarity\ninvolving a classification between the normal and the abnormal, where the abnormal is to be some handicap, not attaining something that the normal does attain.\n\nWhat, then, is a norm?\n\nIt is a way for a group to provide itself with a common denominator in accordance with a rigorous principle of self-referentiality, with no recourse to any kind of external reference point, either in the form of an idea or an object. The normative process can obey a variety of different logics: the panoptical logic of discipline, the probabilistic schema of insurance, or the communicative logic of the technical norm. These three logics have the same form: in each case, the rule which serves as a norm, by virtue of which everyone can measure, evaluate, and identify himself or herself, will be derived from those for whom it will serve as a standard. A strange logic, this, which forces the group to turn back in upon itself and which, from the moment it establishes itself, will let no one escape its purview.\np. 154\n\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Sunday 16. January 2022, 18:48\n\n\nOn Foucault: The effects without effector\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Michael Foucault. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Pantheon, New York, 1980.\nPublication\n\n\n\none finds all sorts of support mechanisms [...] which invent, modify and re-adjust, according to the circumstances of the moment and the place- so that you get a coherent, rational strategy, but one for which it is no longer possible to identify a person who conceived it.\np. 203\n\nIn this passage, and the one following it, I think Foucault pinpoints as one of the central attributes of the apparatus (or dispositif) the arbitrariness of the order of power relations. There is no identity having to undergo some sort of inventive process to start off a collective change, a \"strategy\" just happens to meet the criteria for deployment.\n\nBut between the strategy which fixes, reproduces, multiplies and accentuates existing relations of forces, and the class which thereby finds itself in a ruling position, there is a reciprocal relation of production. Thus one can say that the strategy of moralising the working class is that of the bourgeoisie. One can even say that it's the strategy which allows the bourgeois class to be the bourgeois class and to exercise its domination. But what I don't think one can say is that it's the bourgeois class on the level of its ideology or its economic project which, as a sort of at once real and fictive subject, invented and forcibly imposed this strategy on the working class.\n\nThis was for me the most powerful grasp of what an apparatus is. A complicated removal of the effector from the effect.\nI struggle to continue to find any substance to the relations of the classes. Does reciprocal mean anything more than both are constitutive of each other? One produces the means of reproduction of the other, but where exactly can I apply moral judgements?\nThis whole ordeal and now I lack subjects to blame.\nHow can this theory possibly bring about change in society? Is that even its goal? Do we undergo this analysis in order to make society better in the end?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Sunday 12. December 2021, 22:01\n\n\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/philosophy copy/","title":"Philosophy","description":null,"body":"Critical considerations during my studies\nI have attended a fair share of philosophical seminars in my studies and consider it a core topic connected both to science and to digital environments.\nNormative and feminist social theory, as well as the theory of science and phenomenology, are all brought to me through seminar formats at university and made up a good part of my education there.\nI find it hard to properly demonstrate what interests me without presenting often long-winded and dull term papers.\nThe courses I loved most also often had a format with a weekly hand-in, where students are asked to comment on the paper they just read to identify points to carry into next week's discussion. I am incredibly thankful for this methodology of approaching complex philosophical works, often complete books with supplicant essays surrounding the course topic. In my opinion, nearly all of the value created during these seminars is contained within the live discussions fed by reading materials and little opinion pieces in the form of forum comments. That's why I decided to share here a selection of these weekly commentaries and the sources they are based upon. They are often unrefined and informal, but they indicate the centerpiece of the seminars and demonstrate many thought processes that happened within me during these sessions. Although I took only a small selection, in sum they are a substantial read. Feel free to just skip through and read what catches your interest.\nForum entries from the Seminar: Critical Epistemologies\nOn Anderson: Institutions\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions\nElizabeth Anderson (2012) Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions, Social Epistemology, 26:2, 163-173,\nDOI: 10.1080/02691728.2011.652211 Publication\n\n\nThe text by Anderson helped shed light on a few issues I stumbled over with Frickers Account. On top of the various issues I and seemingly others have with her virtue-based approach, I think a utilitarian angle is worth considering. That would be: okay, I accept that people can help fight injustice by realising their privilege, showing restraint, silencing themselves, and adopting the benevolent listening approach. I think that is a practical, virtuous, and realistic endeavour.\nBut is it the effective path to alleviating structural injustice? I think not, and initially, that is a major reason I discarded Fricker’s approach, although I saw merit. I have similar concerns to Anderson in the scalability of virtues. Virtuous behavior might help my personal well-being, it gives me normative elevation and might even further the quality of relationships I have. But is it applicable to society, is it enough to counteract structural injustice?\nWell, maybe, assuming that:\n\nEveryone realizes their privilege,\nEveryone concludes that justice is the right goal,\nUpon deciding to adopt a virtuous stance, everyone at least moderately succeeds in practicing what they preach.\n\nI think, for society, the same society that came up with patriarchy in the first place, external pressure, some measure independent of the convictedness of the subjects is needed.\nAnderson made the powerful point of: “Anything that works, goes”, which took me some time to appreciate. I am always angry when I get told to keep my shower to a minimum or stop using plastic straws when I know exactly that my using less water is nothing compared to the institutionalized practice of Coca-Cola putting water into bottles. I feel like it is unjustified to ask me to save water while others triple their output, for performance.\nThe same thing applies to Epistemic injustices. It strikes me how much energy it costs to keep up virtuous behavior individually and how little effect there is to show for it. I do not believe in “trickling up” where institutions will eventually adopt individual practices.\nIs Fricker thereby less right in her point? No, it adds up, as an entire population showering shorter adds up to lots of water saved.\nAnderson also points out how locally innocent biases can create injustice on a “macro” scale. Another indicator for me is that local virtue is not the sole solution, as it can still feed and sustain a system enforcing epistemic injustice.\nI still have doubts about what to do now with my ideas, on how the world looks that I want. I lack the imagination of seeing a world that is epistemically just, and it is hard to strive for something one cannot even imagine. The system is inherently leaning toward inequality, if I try to balance something on a needle, it will only go well so long, before small imbalances create chain reactions and the object should be called unstable. Should we even succeed in “resetting” society, creating equal participation for each subject, how will it remain just? Is Justice always a conjunct of Equality? Are there ways to achieve real Justice without needing equality?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Tuesday 14. July 2020, 17:45\n\n\nOn Medina, the informant and the inquirer\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Dr. José Medina (2012) Hermeneutical Injustice and Polyphonic Contextualism: Social Silences and Shared Hermeneutical Responsibilities, Social Epistemology, 26:2, 201-220, DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2011.652214\nPublication\n\n\nMy biggest takeaway here was that, as I tried to hint at in an earlier comment,\nWhenever we talk about justice, this necessarily refers to a relational concept, where everybody has a double role to ensure successful communication. Medina calls these the inquirer and the informant. So, every individual has to make sure to act to her capacity as an epistemologically sound knowledge-acquiring agent (the inquirer). This would involve knowing when and how to falsify/qualify statements, making inferences about the theory of mind, and generally comparing different statements. The other role is the informant, where the individual should have the capacity to function as an object in an inquiry by another.\nVery roughly this can, I think, be compared to any good communication model, where there are a listener and a speaker, and both have to function. What was new here, or at least came out more clear is that it not only depends on the capacity of both of these roles on the subject, but it is also directly dependent on the “other”, the agent opposite of the subject. We may call this other society later but it helps me to visualize the other as an individual nonetheless. Where the analogy to communication now fails, in my opinion, is this cross-dependence, where an agent does not fully determine her capacity to act both as an inquirer and as an informant, it is co-determined by the “other”. So, if I, as an “other”, listen to someone's statements, and I fail or refuse to understand the epistemic content of the message, I am not only impairing my epistemic agency, but I also hurt the epistemic agency of the subject. Maybe obvious to most, but this thought struck me as being exactly the point of leverage for dysfunctionalities in power relations.\nAlso argued convincingly in the paper was that these are distinct and independent agencies, which can be impairing an individual separately.\nOverall, the Medina text was incredibly helpful after the somewhat confusing Fricker text that felt incomplete and left a lot of questions for me. The medina text picked up all my initial doubts, that I couldn't properly formulate, and many more, while still holding to the general framework of Fricker.\nAlthough I was not convinced by the Fricker Text, I tend to think the strategy:\n\"When in doubt, give the subject full epistemic credibility\"\nIs a good strategy that might alleviate a lot of issues regarding functions of power, and hierarchy, but also further, it might be a good counter for things as our confirmation bias, expectation bias and many individual errors that we could minimize by constantly exposing ourselves to falsifiability through others (voluntarily). Sounds like science applied to agency to me.\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Thursday 09. July 2020, 11:25\n\n\nOn Jaggar: Norms, Outlaw Emotions, and the Ideal Society\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Alison M. Jaggar (1989) Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology, Inquiry, 32:2, 151-176, DOI: 10.1080/00201748908602185\nPublication\n\n\nI found Jaggar to be a very wholesome read, it was the perfect amount of grounded argumentative structure and felt very connected as a whole. This was, together with the ideas from Lugones the best and most fruitful paper for me.\nOn outlaw emotions:\nFirst, I hate the term, I think it’s placative and fails to frame the (actually nice) idea behind it.\nOutlaw Emotions are all those emotions incompatible with the dominant norms. That’s a huge field to cover, among feminist emotions they would also encompass emotions that are irrational or “faulty”. So, Jaggar does the term Justice by saying, some, but not all Outlaw Emotions are Feminist emotions. To make this evident, just think of a murderer's joy for killing, it is of no feminist interest to dissect, yet it is against dominant values. So, experiencing Outlaw emotions is a (probably) necessary, but not sufficient condition for feminism. The incompatible emotion serves to create discourse and change.\nJaggar convincingly shows how emotions have a direct influence on beliefs and can validly constitute evidence, while simultaneously validly influencing values in a similar manner.\nWhen we talk about dominant/alternative norms, we already endorse hierarchy in society. We acknowledge its existence, simply by identifying the dominant norm. I am not quite sure what exactly Jaggar proposes we should do with the hierarchy structures in society. Explicitly I can read: Subcultures rejecting dominant norms should be formed, to create counterbalances and a somewhat fair discourse over the topic.\n“How can we determine which outlaw emotions are to be endorsed or encouraged and which rejected? In what sense can we say that some emotional responses are more appropriate than others? What reason is there for supposing that certain alternative perceptions of the world, perceptions informed by outlaw emotions, are to be preferred to perceptions informed by conventional emotions? Here I can indicate only the general direction of an answer, whose full elaboration must await another occasion. I suggest that emotions are appropriate if they are characteristic of a society in which all Human Life (and perhaps some nonhuman life, too) thrive, or if they are conducive to establishing such a society.”\nTo me this passage sounds sketchy at best, there is no indication of how to successfully separate appropriate from inappropriate emotions. Roughly, I read this part as: emotions are warranted iff they increase the balance of power. (equivalent to minimizing the height of the hierarchy) I would love to get to read this “other occasion” because it seems indefensible to me to formulate a norm that states: Accept only emotions which eliminate/diminish norms.\nThe idea roughly resembles Rawls's Minimax Principle, where a policy should be implemented iff the benefit for the most disadvantaged is highest.\nAnother thing I found helpful is her reformulation of what norms do:\n“Dominant Norms tend to serve dominant interests”\ntil here nothing new, this is a tautology for me, I understand norms as identical to dominant interests, that’s literally what norms are.\nIs an alternative, suppressed norm even thinkable? Isn't it inherent in a norm that it be the dominant one?\nBut then, after that: \"Whatever our color / gender / class / sexual orientation, we are likely to adopt the dominant value of racist, classist, homophobe, misogynistic white men.\"\nThis was rather helpful to me, as it reframes the “act” of oppression as the “likelihood of value distribution” being skewed in your favor, making everybody’s values more likely to be similar to yours. This nicely illustrates how a system can be hierarchical and oppressive, without anybody actively, intentionally “acting oppressive”, while still perpetuating oppression. I'm\nnot saying everybody is acting unintentionally oppressive, but it is always hard to imagine for me to picture \"White Men\" forming a group and collectively deciding on who to hate this coming season, Conceptually separating \"being oppressed\" and \"oppressing\" into phenomena\nwithout necessary inherent causal relation makes sense to me here.\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Tuesday 23. June 2020, 18:52\n\n\nForum entries from the Seminar: Critical Philosophy of Subjectivity 1: Michel Foucault\nOn Butler: Constituting norms =/= carrying normative responsibilities for their existence\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Butler, J. (2004). Undoing Gender (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203499627\nPublication\n\n\nCitation from Butler, Page 51, citing Ewald, which is, in turn, interpreting Foucault:\n\nThe norm integrates anything which might attempt to go beyond it—nothing, nobody, whatever difference it might display, can ever claim to be exterior, or claim to possess an otherness which would actually make it other”\n(Norms, Discipline, and the Law, P.173)\n\nSuch a view suggests that any opposition to the norm is already\ncontained within the norm, and is crucial to its functioning.\nHere, for me, the entire futility of the approach later identified and described is condensed into a few sentences.\n\nHence, regulations that seek merely to curb certain specified activities (sexual harassment, welfare fraud, sexual speech) perform another activity that, for the most part, remains unmarked: the production of the parameters of personhood, that is, making persons according to abstract norms that at once condition and exceed the lives they make—and break.\nPage 56, final sentence\n\nThe idea that it is impossible to legislatively regulate norms without propelling, propagating, and carving them out deeper resonates with me, but at the same time, it has left me undecided on how to proceed.\nI understand the first citation to clearly be Ewald's interpretation of things and am not sure whether Foucault's careful circumvention of the term \"Norms\" is related to anticipation of this argument.\nFurther, I am not sure I share Ewald's interpretation; I see that the object \"othered\" by a norm is a constituent and necessary object for the norm, simply due to its \"comparative\" nature (p. 51, citation from Ewald).\nThe oppressed may well be as constituting of norms as the privileged, but this does not translate to a normative responsibility nor a pang of guilt in my opinion. The dangerous argument that the oppressed bear responsibility for their situation is too close for my taste. I would like to emphasize a clear cut between constituting and reinforcing a norm and thriving on it.\nYes, maybe that is a good location to make the cut: The normative and ethical pressure, or better, the guilt of complicity lies with the ones thriving BECAUSE of a norm and clearly not with those thriving DESPITE OF a norm.\nI would think that Butler makes a similar argument elsewhere, but as such, I was missing it here, resulting in a very bleak and hopeless situation where any struggle to change the status quo through legislation is doomed and inevitably propagates and reinvents stable unfair relations of power.\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Sunday 23. January 2022, 14:23\n\n\nOn Ewald: What, then, is a norm?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: François Ewald; Norms, Discipline, and the Law. Representations 1 April 1990; 30 138–161. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2928449\nPublication\n\n\nSome tiny details about norms that stuck out to me about the norm were that: 1: they are fictional and thus, an object conforming to a norm is not more meaningful than an object not conforming to a norm. 2: the entire given set comprises the norm, the deviations play a defining role in the formation of the norm itself (or an average).\np. 152: Under norm, 3 phenomena are subsumed: Discipline,\nless as a constraint, but more as a regulatory mechanism insurance,\nReducing objects to their relative occurrence, distributing risk. and standardization.\nThe norm has three defining features:\n\npositivism,\nas reliant on facts, which have an aura of objectivity around them.\nrelativity,\nthey are neither absolute nor universal, they have a scope, both in definition as a certain temporal extension.\npolarity\ninvolving a classification between the normal and the abnormal, where the abnormal is to be some handicap, not attaining something that the normal does attain.\n\nWhat, then, is a norm?\n\nIt is a way for a group to provide itself with a common denominator in accordance with a rigorous principle of self-referentiality, with no recourse to any kind of external reference point, either in the form of an idea or an object. The normative process can obey a variety of different logics: the panoptical logic of discipline, the probabilistic schema of insurance, or the communicative logic of the technical norm. These three logics have the same form: in each case, the rule which serves as a norm, by virtue of which everyone can measure, evaluate, and identify himself or herself, will be derived from those for whom it will serve as a standard. A strange logic, this, which forces the group to turn back in upon itself and which, from the moment it establishes itself, will let no one escape its purview.\np. 154\n\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Sunday 16. January 2022, 18:48\n\n\nOn Foucault: The effects without effector\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Michael Foucault. Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Pantheon, New York, 1980.\nPublication\n\n\n\none finds all sorts of support mechanisms [...] which invent, modify and re-adjust, according to the circumstances of the moment and the place- so that you get a coherent, rational strategy, but one for which it is no longer possible to identify a person who conceived it.\np. 203\n\nIn this passage, and the one following it, I think Foucault pinpoints as one of the central attributes of the apparatus (or dispositif) the arbitrariness of the order of power relations. There is no identity having to undergo some sort of inventive process to start off a collective change, a \"strategy\" just happens to meet the criteria for deployment.\n\nBut between the strategy which fixes, reproduces, multiplies and accentuates existing relations of forces, and the class which thereby finds itself in a ruling position, there is a reciprocal relation of production. Thus one can say that the strategy of moralising the working class is that of the bourgeoisie. One can even say that it's the strategy which allows the bourgeois class to be the bourgeois class and to exercise its domination. But what I don't think one can say is that it's the bourgeois class on the level of its ideology or its economic project which, as a sort of at once real and fictive subject, invented and forcibly imposed this strategy on the working class.\n\nThis was for me the most powerful grasp of what an apparatus is. A complicated removal of the effector from the effect.\nI struggle to continue to find any substance to the relations of the classes. Does reciprocal mean anything more than both are constitutive of each other? One produces the means of reproduction of the other, but where exactly can I apply moral judgements?\nThis whole ordeal and now I lack subjects to blame.\nHow can this theory possibly bring about change in society? Is that even its goal? Do we undergo this analysis in order to make society better in the end?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Sunday 12. December 2021, 22:01\n\n\nForum entries from the Seminar: Is political violence justifiable? Reading Judith Butler and Elsa Dorlin\nOn Dorlin\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Dorlin, Elsa. Se défendre: une philosophie de la violence. Zones, 2017.\nPublication (Not yet translated to English)\n\n\nFrom the seventh chapter in Dorlins \"Self-Defense\", I found the idea that safe spaces are actually prone to be counterproductive very strong.\nI think the discussion around whether safe spaces are an effective tool that is appropriate on top is a rather current and ongoing one.\nIn so many other words, Dorlin here opens up the idea that the creation of a safe space always implies a hostile \"outside\" or other space.\nFurther, Dorling sees as problematic that safe spaces will often experience problematic situations when trying to self-govern. The line of thought here is that safe spaces often explicitly reject the authority of traditional state bodies, since those exactly are identified as the oppressive force. This is problematic because then the community inside the safe space has to recreate social norms from scratch and qua definition of a safe space end up being much more restrictive and monitoring, tapping also into potentially extreme measurements for \"enforcing\" safety.\nDorlin notes that by doing this, societal oppressive norms can end up becoming reproduced through the very instance created to shelter from it.\nI think this opens up 2 points worth discussing:\nAre there limits to the self-governance of leftist groups? How can self-governance be made possible without recreating some hierarchy or other?\nDoes this ignore that safe spaces can sometimes be essential for survival? According to Dorlin, the alternative seems to be to instead of building sheltered, isolated safe spaces, the fight has to occur in the public, transforming the entire space without the necessity for exclusive logic. How can we argue this? Could there be an oppressed position from whence any aggressive stance towards the public forbids itself? (I think there is!) For me this seems like putting the entire burden of transformational potential on the oppressed individual, enabling a position like: \"Well, the person did not object or introduce change, so the person implied consent.\"\nWill a public fight cause more harm being fought than it will save after introducing change? And who are we to calculate this beforehand?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Sunday 05. December 2021, 15:52\n\n\nWeekly hand in from the Seminar: Soziale Erkenntnistheorie\nOn Fricker: Epistemic Injustice\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, 2007.\nPublication\n\n\n\nWorin unterscheiden sich inferentialistische von nicht-inferentialistischen Theorien der testimonialen Erkenntnis (d.h. des Wissens durch das Zeugniss andere)?\n\nInferentialistische Theorien gehen davon aus, dass die eigentliche Inferenz, also die Generierung eines neuen Epistems im Subjekt stattfindet. Konkret heisst dass, dass Ich die Aussage P einer dritten Person erst in irgendeiner Weise vor mir selbst rechtfertigen muss, bevor ich sie selbst verwenden kann. Ist die Aussage nun 2 + 2 = 4, muss ich also mit allen mir zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln selbst überprüfen, ob diese Aussage Wahrheits- und Kohärenzkriterien erfüllt. Ich muss also beispielsweise über darunterliegende Axiome, die mir bekannt sind, die Aussage extern (ausserhalb von Person X hat das gesagt, also kann Ich das glauben) überprüfen. Im simplen Beispiel also konkret das Ergebnis berechnen. Wenn man so will, liegt also immer die “Beweislast” für meine eigenen Episteme bei mir und ich kann diesen Beweisaufwand nur begrenzt auslagern. Eine sehr direkte Folge davon wäre, dass jeglicher Erkenntnisgewinn mit erheblicher, bewusster oder unbewusster Arbeit verbunden ist.\nDies wäre die wahrscheinlich logisch stringentere Theorie, gegen sie spricht aber die Phänomenologie eines Erkenntisgewinns. Eine Erkenntnis kommt uns oft vor wie ein “Heureka” Moment, wir “finden” sie, plötzlich ist sie da und wir können mit ihr arbeiten.\nEine nicht-inferentialistische Theorie legt ebendiese Beweislast nicht im Subjekt an, ich habe eine Erlaubnis, oder besser, ein Recht auf a-priori Annahme der Richtigkeit der Aussage. “Person X hat mir P gesagt, also kann ich P verwenden” ist nun valide und bedarf erstmal keiner weiteren Überprüfung auf Richtigkeit. Diese Argumentationslinie ist deutlich kompatibler mit der phänomenologischen Erfahrung einer Erkenntnis vim Alltag. Wir stoßen aber auf deutlich größere Probleme, wenn wir uns fragen, woher eigentlich unser Recht auf Wahrheitsannahme von Drittaussagen kommt. Klar, 2+2=4, weil der Prof das an die Tafel geschrieben hat, ist die “schlechtere” Begründung als zu sagen, dass das Ergebnis aus gewissen mathematischen Axiomen deduziert wurde.\n\nFormulieren Sie jeweils einen Einwand gegen beide Theorien.\n\nWir befinden uns also nun in der Spannung der phänomenalistischen “Heureka” Erfahrung des Findens von Epistemen (in nicht-inferentiellen Systemen) und dem Problem der schwachen Justifizierung von Aussagen gegenüber der erhöhten Stringenz eines epistemischen Systems, dass externe (logische, probabilistische, normative etc.) Gründe für Aussagen zur Verfügung stellt, aber einen schier unüberwindbaren rechnerischen Aufwand darstellt. Auch das Problem der ersten Begründung bleibt bestehen. Angenommen, ich weiß noch nichts, habe bisher null Episteme gesammelt, wie wird das erste Epistem, das ich finde, begründbar sein?\n\nWorin besteht doxastische Verantwortung (doxastic responsibility) nach F und Ihrer eigenen Meinung nach.\n\nDoxastische Verantwortung ist die Verantwortung für die Begründbarkeit des eigenen Nezwerkes aus Epistemen. Wenn mich also jemand fragt: Warum glaubst du das?, ist es sozial im Allgemeinen erwartbar, dass ich darauf eine Antwort liefern kann. Und wie wir eben schon am Beispiel der Begründung für 2+2=4 gesehen haben, scheint es hier “bessere” und weniger gute Gründe zu geben, das heisst, eine Person kann zur Verantwortung gezogen werden, unzureichend begründete Episteme fallen zu lassen und eine gewisse Grenze zu ziehen, eine mindest erwartbare Begründung. Diese kann sehr wahrscheinlich nicht universell formuliert werden. Eine Regel wie: Alle Bürger dürfen nur noch Aussagen weiterverwenden, denen sie eine mindestens 90-prozentige Wahrheitswarscheinlichkeit attestieren, ist aus diversen Gründen problematisch.\nFrickers Auffassung Doxastischer Verantwortung ist insofern speziell, als dass sie eine deutliche Verbindung moralischer Verantwortung (die wir offensichtlich alle in irgendeiner Form tragen) und Doxastischer Verantwortung sieht. Sogar die Gründe sind oft überlappend. Eine Gute Moralische Begründung, die zum Beispiel der Wahrhaftigkeit, scheint ganz offensichtlich auch eine gute doxastische begründung zu sein. Diese Parallelität zieht Fricker heran, um neo-aristotelianische Moralbegründuungen auch auf epistemischer Ebene wirksam zu machen.\nIch lasse mich da gern Überzeugen von Ihr und erache es als sinnvoll Doxastische Verantwortung in gewisser Weise moralisch bindend zu machen. Intuitiv wissen wir ja auch, dass unsere Erwartung, dass dritte wahrhaftig mit uns interagieren, auf Gegenseitigkeit beruht und das leben nicht nur normativ, sondern auch auf epistemischer Ebene “verbessert”. Dies liefert auch eine recht simplistesche Rechtfertigung, annehmen zu können, dass Dritte mir die Wahreit sagen. Ich tue ja auch immer mein Bestes, warum also die anderen nicht?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on 05.01.2021\n\n\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/political-violence/","title":"Political Violence","description":null,"body":"Forum entries from the Seminar: Is political violence justifiable? Reading Judith Butler and Elsa Dorlin\nOn Dorlin\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Dorlin, Elsa. Se défendre: une philosophie de la violence. Zones, 2017.\nPublication (Not yet translated to English)\n\n\nFrom the seventh chapter in Dorlins \"Self-Defense\", I found the idea that safe spaces are actually prone to be counterproductive very strong.\nI think the discussion around whether safe spaces are an effective tool that is appropriate on top is a rather current and ongoing one.\nIn so many other words, Dorlin here opens up the idea that the creation of a safe space always implies a hostile \"outside\" or other space.\nFurther, Dorling sees as problematic that safe spaces will often experience problematic situations when trying to self-govern. The line of thought here is that safe spaces often explicitly reject the authority of traditional state bodies, since those exactly are identified as the oppressive force. This is problematic because then the community inside the safe space has to recreate social norms from scratch and qua definition of a safe space end up being much more restrictive and monitoring, tapping also into potentially extreme measurements for \"enforcing\" safety.\nDorlin notes that by doing this, societal oppressive norms can end up becoming reproduced through the very instance created to shelter from it.\nI think this opens up 2 points worth discussing:\nAre there limits to the self-governance of leftist groups? How can self-governance be made possible without recreating some hierarchy or other?\nDoes this ignore that safe spaces can sometimes be essential for survival? According to Dorlin, the alternative seems to be to instead of building sheltered, isolated safe spaces, the fight has to occur in the public, transforming the entire space without the necessity for exclusive logic. How can we argue this? Could there be an oppressed position from whence any aggressive stance towards the public forbids itself? (I think there is!) For me this seems like putting the entire burden of transformational potential on the oppressed individual, enabling a position like: \"Well, the person did not object or introduce change, so the person implied consent.\"\nWill a public fight cause more harm being fought than it will save after introducing change? And who are we to calculate this beforehand?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Sunday 05. December 2021, 15:52\n\n\nWeekly hand in from the Seminar: Soziale Erkenntnistheorie\nOn Fricker: Epistemic Injustice\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, 2007.\nPublication\n\n\n\nWorin unterscheiden sich inferentialistische von nicht-inferentialistischen Theorien der testimonialen Erkenntnis (d.h. des Wissens durch das Zeugniss andere)?\n\nInferentialistische Theorien gehen davon aus, dass die eigentliche Inferenz, also die Generierung eines neuen Epistems im Subjekt stattfindet. Konkret heisst dass, dass Ich die Aussage P einer dritten Person erst in irgendeiner Weise vor mir selbst rechtfertigen muss, bevor ich sie selbst verwenden kann. Ist die Aussage nun 2 + 2 = 4, muss ich also mit allen mir zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln selbst überprüfen, ob diese Aussage Wahrheits- und Kohärenzkriterien erfüllt. Ich muss also beispielsweise über darunterliegende Axiome, die mir bekannt sind, die Aussage extern (ausserhalb von Person X hat das gesagt, also kann Ich das glauben) überprüfen. Im simplen Beispiel also konkret das Ergebnis berechnen. Wenn man so will, liegt also immer die “Beweislast” für meine eigenen Episteme bei mir und ich kann diesen Beweisaufwand nur begrenzt auslagern. Eine sehr direkte Folge davon wäre, dass jeglicher Erkenntnisgewinn mit erheblicher, bewusster oder unbewusster Arbeit verbunden ist.\nDies wäre die wahrscheinlich logisch stringentere Theorie, gegen sie spricht aber die Phänomenologie eines Erkenntisgewinns. Eine Erkenntnis kommt uns oft vor wie ein “Heureka” Moment, wir “finden” sie, plötzlich ist sie da und wir können mit ihr arbeiten.\nEine nicht-inferentialistische Theorie legt ebendiese Beweislast nicht im Subjekt an, ich habe eine Erlaubnis, oder besser, ein Recht auf a-priori Annahme der Richtigkeit der Aussage. “Person X hat mir P gesagt, also kann ich P verwenden” ist nun valide und bedarf erstmal keiner weiteren Überprüfung auf Richtigkeit. Diese Argumentationslinie ist deutlich kompatibler mit der phänomenologischen Erfahrung einer Erkenntnis vim Alltag. Wir stoßen aber auf deutlich größere Probleme, wenn wir uns fragen, woher eigentlich unser Recht auf Wahrheitsannahme von Drittaussagen kommt. Klar, 2+2=4, weil der Prof das an die Tafel geschrieben hat, ist die “schlechtere” Begründung als zu sagen, dass das Ergebnis aus gewissen mathematischen Axiomen deduziert wurde.\n\nFormulieren Sie jeweils einen Einwand gegen beide Theorien.\n\nWir befinden uns also nun in der Spannung der phänomenalistischen “Heureka” Erfahrung des Findens von Epistemen (in nicht-inferentiellen Systemen) und dem Problem der schwachen Justifizierung von Aussagen gegenüber der erhöhten Stringenz eines epistemischen Systems, dass externe (logische, probabilistische, normative etc.) Gründe für Aussagen zur Verfügung stellt, aber einen schier unüberwindbaren rechnerischen Aufwand darstellt. Auch das Problem der ersten Begründung bleibt bestehen. Angenommen, ich weiß noch nichts, habe bisher null Episteme gesammelt, wie wird das erste Epistem, das ich finde, begründbar sein?\n\nWorin besteht doxastische Verantwortung (doxastic responsibility) nach F und Ihrer eigenen Meinung nach.\n\nDoxastische Verantwortung ist die Verantwortung für die Begründbarkeit des eigenen Nezwerkes aus Epistemen. Wenn mich also jemand fragt: Warum glaubst du das?, ist es sozial im Allgemeinen erwartbar, dass ich darauf eine Antwort liefern kann. Und wie wir eben schon am Beispiel der Begründung für 2+2=4 gesehen haben, scheint es hier “bessere” und weniger gute Gründe zu geben, das heisst, eine Person kann zur Verantwortung gezogen werden, unzureichend begründete Episteme fallen zu lassen und eine gewisse Grenze zu ziehen, eine mindest erwartbare Begründung. Diese kann sehr wahrscheinlich nicht universell formuliert werden. Eine Regel wie: Alle Bürger dürfen nur noch Aussagen weiterverwenden, denen sie eine mindestens 90-prozentige Wahrheitswarscheinlichkeit attestieren, ist aus diversen Gründen problematisch.\nFrickers Auffassung Doxastischer Verantwortung ist insofern speziell, als dass sie eine deutliche Verbindung moralischer Verantwortung (die wir offensichtlich alle in irgendeiner Form tragen) und Doxastischer Verantwortung sieht. Sogar die Gründe sind oft überlappend. Eine Gute Moralische Begründung, die zum Beispiel der Wahrhaftigkeit, scheint ganz offensichtlich auch eine gute doxastische begründung zu sein. Diese Parallelität zieht Fricker heran, um neo-aristotelianische Moralbegründuungen auch auf epistemischer Ebene wirksam zu machen.\nIch lasse mich da gern Überzeugen von Ihr und erache es als sinnvoll Doxastische Verantwortung in gewisser Weise moralisch bindend zu machen. Intuitiv wissen wir ja auch, dass unsere Erwartung, dass dritte wahrhaftig mit uns interagieren, auf Gegenseitigkeit beruht und das leben nicht nur normativ, sondern auch auf epistemischer Ebene “verbessert”. Dies liefert auch eine recht simplistesche Rechtfertigung, annehmen zu können, dass Dritte mir die Wahreit sagen. Ich tue ja auch immer mein Bestes, warum also die anderen nicht?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on 05.01.2021\n\n\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/critical-epistemologies/","title":"Critical Epistemology","description":null,"body":"Forum entries from the Seminar: Critical Epistemologies\nOn Anderson: Institutions\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions\nElizabeth Anderson (2012) Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions, Social Epistemology, 26:2, 163-173,\nDOI: 10.1080/02691728.2011.652211 Publication\n\n\nThe text by Anderson helped shed light on a few issues I stumbled over with Frickers Account. On top of the various issues I and seemingly others have with her virtue-based approach, I think a utilitarian angle is worth considering. That would be: okay, I accept that people can help fight injustice by realising their privilege, showing restraint, silencing themselves, and adopting the benevolent listening approach. I think that is a practical, virtuous, and realistic endeavour.\nBut is it the effective path to alleviating structural injustice? I think not, and initially, that is a major reason I discarded Fricker’s approach, although I saw merit. I have similar concerns to Anderson in the scalability of virtues. Virtuous behavior might help my personal well-being, it gives me normative elevation and might even further the quality of relationships I have. But is it applicable to society, is it enough to counteract structural injustice?\nWell, maybe, assuming that:\n\nEveryone realizes their privilege,\nEveryone concludes that justice is the right goal,\nUpon deciding to adopt a virtuous stance, everyone at least moderately succeeds in practicing what they preach.\n\nI think, for society, the same society that came up with patriarchy in the first place, external pressure, some measure independent of the convictedness of the subjects is needed.\nAnderson made the powerful point of: “Anything that works, goes”, which took me some time to appreciate. I am always angry when I get told to keep my shower to a minimum or stop using plastic straws when I know exactly that my using less water is nothing compared to the institutionalized practice of Coca-Cola putting water into bottles. I feel like it is unjustified to ask me to save water while others triple their output, for performance.\nThe same thing applies to Epistemic injustices. It strikes me how much energy it costs to keep up virtuous behavior individually and how little effect there is to show for it. I do not believe in “trickling up” where institutions will eventually adopt individual practices.\nIs Fricker thereby less right in her point? No, it adds up, as an entire population showering shorter adds up to lots of water saved.\nAnderson also points out how locally innocent biases can create injustice on a “macro” scale. Another indicator for me is that local virtue is not the sole solution, as it can still feed and sustain a system enforcing epistemic injustice.\nI still have doubts about what to do now with my ideas, on how the world looks that I want. I lack the imagination of seeing a world that is epistemically just, and it is hard to strive for something one cannot even imagine. The system is inherently leaning toward inequality, if I try to balance something on a needle, it will only go well so long, before small imbalances create chain reactions and the object should be called unstable. Should we even succeed in “resetting” society, creating equal participation for each subject, how will it remain just? Is Justice always a conjunct of Equality? Are there ways to achieve real Justice without needing equality?\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Tuesday 14. July 2020, 17:45\n\n\nOn Medina, the informant and the inquirer\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Dr. José Medina (2012) Hermeneutical Injustice and Polyphonic Contextualism: Social Silences and Shared Hermeneutical Responsibilities, Social Epistemology, 26:2, 201-220, DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2011.652214\nPublication\n\n\nMy biggest takeaway here was that, as I tried to hint at in an earlier comment,\nWhenever we talk about justice, this necessarily refers to a relational concept, where everybody has a double role to ensure successful communication. Medina calls these the inquirer and the informant. So, every individual has to make sure to act to her capacity as an epistemologically sound knowledge-acquiring agent (the inquirer). This would involve knowing when and how to falsify/qualify statements, making inferences about the theory of mind, and generally comparing different statements. The other role is the informant, where the individual should have the capacity to function as an object in an inquiry by another.\nVery roughly this can, I think, be compared to any good communication model, where there are a listener and a speaker, and both have to function. What was new here, or at least came out more clear is that it not only depends on the capacity of both of these roles on the subject, but it is also directly dependent on the “other”, the agent opposite of the subject. We may call this other society later but it helps me to visualize the other as an individual nonetheless. Where the analogy to communication now fails, in my opinion, is this cross-dependence, where an agent does not fully determine her capacity to act both as an inquirer and as an informant, it is co-determined by the “other”. So, if I, as an “other”, listen to someone's statements, and I fail or refuse to understand the epistemic content of the message, I am not only impairing my epistemic agency, but I also hurt the epistemic agency of the subject. Maybe obvious to most, but this thought struck me as being exactly the point of leverage for dysfunctionalities in power relations.\nAlso argued convincingly in the paper was that these are distinct and independent agencies, which can be impairing an individual separately.\nOverall, the Medina text was incredibly helpful after the somewhat confusing Fricker text that felt incomplete and left a lot of questions for me. The medina text picked up all my initial doubts, that I couldn't properly formulate, and many more, while still holding to the general framework of Fricker.\nAlthough I was not convinced by the Fricker Text, I tend to think the strategy:\n\"When in doubt, give the subject full epistemic credibility\"\nIs a good strategy that might alleviate a lot of issues regarding functions of power, and hierarchy, but also further, it might be a good counter for things as our confirmation bias, expectation bias and many individual errors that we could minimize by constantly exposing ourselves to falsifiability through others (voluntarily). Sounds like science applied to agency to me.\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Thursday 09. July 2020, 11:25\n\n\nOn Jaggar: Norms, Outlaw Emotions, and the Ideal Society\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tSource Text: Alison M. Jaggar (1989) Love and knowledge: Emotion in feminist epistemology, Inquiry, 32:2, 151-176, DOI: 10.1080/00201748908602185\nPublication\n\n\nI found Jaggar to be a very wholesome read, it was the perfect amount of grounded argumentative structure and felt very connected as a whole. This was, together with the ideas from Lugones the best and most fruitful paper for me.\nOn outlaw emotions:\nFirst, I hate the term, I think it’s placative and fails to frame the (actually nice) idea behind it.\nOutlaw Emotions are all those emotions incompatible with the dominant norms. That’s a huge field to cover, among feminist emotions they would also encompass emotions that are irrational or “faulty”. So, Jaggar does the term Justice by saying, some, but not all Outlaw Emotions are Feminist emotions. To make this evident, just think of a murderer's joy for killing, it is of no feminist interest to dissect, yet it is against dominant values. So, experiencing Outlaw emotions is a (probably) necessary, but not sufficient condition for feminism. The incompatible emotion serves to create discourse and change.\nJaggar convincingly shows how emotions have a direct influence on beliefs and can validly constitute evidence, while simultaneously validly influencing values in a similar manner.\nWhen we talk about dominant/alternative norms, we already endorse hierarchy in society. We acknowledge its existence, simply by identifying the dominant norm. I am not quite sure what exactly Jaggar proposes we should do with the hierarchy structures in society. Explicitly I can read: Subcultures rejecting dominant norms should be formed, to create counterbalances and a somewhat fair discourse over the topic.\n“How can we determine which outlaw emotions are to be endorsed or encouraged and which rejected? In what sense can we say that some emotional responses are more appropriate than others? What reason is there for supposing that certain alternative perceptions of the world, perceptions informed by outlaw emotions, are to be preferred to perceptions informed by conventional emotions? Here I can indicate only the general direction of an answer, whose full elaboration must await another occasion. I suggest that emotions are appropriate if they are characteristic of a society in which all Human Life (and perhaps some nonhuman life, too) thrive, or if they are conducive to establishing such a society.”\nTo me this passage sounds sketchy at best, there is no indication of how to successfully separate appropriate from inappropriate emotions. Roughly, I read this part as: emotions are warranted iff they increase the balance of power. (equivalent to minimizing the height of the hierarchy) I would love to get to read this “other occasion” because it seems indefensible to me to formulate a norm that states: Accept only emotions which eliminate/diminish norms.\nThe idea roughly resembles Rawls's Minimax Principle, where a policy should be implemented iff the benefit for the most disadvantaged is highest.\nAnother thing I found helpful is her reformulation of what norms do:\n“Dominant Norms tend to serve dominant interests”\ntil here nothing new, this is a tautology for me, I understand norms as identical to dominant interests, that’s literally what norms are.\nIs an alternative, suppressed norm even thinkable? Isn't it inherent in a norm that it be the dominant one?\nBut then, after that: \"Whatever our color / gender / class / sexual orientation, we are likely to adopt the dominant value of racist, classist, homophobe, misogynistic white men.\"\nThis was rather helpful to me, as it reframes the “act” of oppression as the “likelihood of value distribution” being skewed in your favor, making everybody’s values more likely to be similar to yours. This nicely illustrates how a system can be hierarchical and oppressive, without anybody actively, intentionally “acting oppressive”, while still perpetuating oppression. I'm\nnot saying everybody is acting unintentionally oppressive, but it is always hard to imagine for me to picture \"White Men\" forming a group and collectively deciding on who to hate this coming season, Conceptually separating \"being oppressed\" and \"oppressing\" into phenomena\nwithout necessary inherent causal relation makes sense to me here.\n\n\t\n\t\tNote\n\tcreated by Aron Petau on Tuesday 23. June 2020, 18:52\n\n\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/plastic-recycling/","title":"Plastic Recycling","description":null,"body":"Being involved with 3D Printers, there is the issue of sustainability that I am confronted with regularly.\nMost 3D printed parts never get recycled and add to the global waste problem, rather than reducing it.\nThe printer most certainly doesn’t care what it is printing, the main problem is the dimensional accuracy and the purity of the material. All of this leads to a huge industry, Germany being especially involved, using loads of virgin plastic.\nWhat can be done about it?\nWe can design our products to last longer, we can also print recycling labels on them so they do not have to get burned after their first life. We can take care to only print functional objects, not just fun toys nobody uses.\nYet, none of that prevents the use of virgin plastics. If you buy a spool of filament, there are some recycled options, but usually at twice the price at worse quality. No wonder recycled filament fails to convince the masses. It is mostly a fun thing YouTubers can pursue, not a valid commercial process.\n\n\nIn my opinion, the core problem is the nonexistent economic feasibility of a proper recycling process. Identifying the exact material of a piece of trash is a very hard problem, definitely not solved yet. So why do we mix the plastic up in the first place? There is a general willingness of people to recycle, but the system for it is missing.\nThe Master Plan\nI want to get people to wash and separate their trash for me, which are the most expensive steps in the recycling process. There is a willingness to take the extra step, and even if just my mom collects bottle caps for me, that is more than I can realistically use up.\nThis only really works when I am thinking in a local and decentral environment.\nThe existing recycling facilities clearly will not be able to provide 200 different containers for 200 different types of plastic.\nStarting the process with clean and sorted materials, like bottle caps (HDPE) or failed prints (PET-G), I start off with an advantage.\nNow I have to take apart the trash into evenly sized particles.\nMeet:\nThe Shredder\nWe built the Precious Plastic Shredder!\n\nWith these awesome open-source drawings, I was able to cobble together my very own very dangerous plastic shredder.\nAfter finding some way to drive this massive axis, I feed the beast and hopefully get tiny pretty uniform plastic bits that are ready to begin the cycle of life anew.\nThe solution for the motorization was an old and used garden shredder that still had an intact motor and wiring.\nWe cut it in half and attached it to the shredder box.\n\n\nAfter replacing the weak force transmission screw for an industrial coupler, we were ready to try it out. Obviously, there are still security concerns in this prototype, a proper hopper is already being made.\nNevertheless, we are confident that this shredder will be able to deal with the light sorts of plastic we are thinking of.\nAs you can see, I am now able to produce awesome confetti but to do more with the plastic flakes I have to extrude them.\nMeet the Filastruder\nThis is the Filastruder, designed and made by Tim Elmore, in an attempt to create the cheapest viable way to extrude plastic. The biggest cost issue is the tight industrial tolerances in thickness that have to be adhered to. This is in essence what separates good from the bad filament. The industry standard nowadays is at +-0.03mm. Hard to achieve on a DIY setup, but not unheard of. The setup, like any bigger industry equivalent, consists of a motor pressing plastic pellets through a heated screw, extruding molten plastic at the end through a nozzle, and setting the diameter. The leftmost machine is responsible for winding the filament properly onto a spool.\nHere you can see the extrusion process in action.\n\n\nThe Filastruder is controlled by an Arduino and is highly configurable. The laser sensor visible in the video is already working, but I am missing more direct control over the diameter of the filament.\nWhen it all really comes down to the single variable of the filament diameter responsible for the quality of my recycled project, a simple Machine Learning optimization directly jumps at me: I have a few variables like winder speed, extrusion speed, heat, and cooling intensity. These variables can be optimized on the fly for an exact diameter. This is actually roughly how virgin filament is produced, commercial facilities just manage much faster.\n\nSo far, I am aware of a few companies and academic projects attempting this process, but none of them manage to get either the quality or the price of other products available. Automatization does not just take out jobs away, I think it can also be a helpful tool, for example tackling environmental issues such as this one.\nThis project is very dear to my heart and I plan to investigate it further in the form of a master thesis.\nThe realization will require many skills I am already picking up or still need to work on within the Design and Computation program.\n{: .notice--info}\n\n Reflow Filament\n\n\n Perpetual Plastic Project\n\n\n Precious Plastic Community\n\n\n Filamentive Statement on why recycling is not feasible in their opinion\n\n\n Open source filament diameter sensor by Tomas Sanladerer\n\n\n Re-Pet Shop\n\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/beacon/","title":"BEACON","description":null,"body":"BEACON: Decentralizing the Energy Grid in inaccessible and remote regions\nAccess to Electricity is a basic human right. At first, that may seem over the top, but if one stops to think what all the little tasks that electricity can indirectly handle for us (lightning, laundry, cooking, freezing, heating, entertaining…) would consume in time and effort if we had to perform them manually, this idea becomes very clear. There are globally around 1 billion people without tier 2 access to electricity.\nSDGS Goal 7\n\nPeople only know the intensity of labor that goes into everything when there is no electricity. And it is not even only about convenience, electricity is an enormous lifesaver in any number of scenarios, think just of hospitals or mobile phone networks that would be rendered completely useless without it. So we can easily agree on a need, a demand for electricity globally, for every person. But what about the supply? Why is there 1 billion undersupplied?\nThe Answer: missing profitability. It would be a charity project to supply every last person on earth, not a profitable one. And while charitable projects are noble and should be pursued, the reality within capitalism shows that this is not the way it is going to happen.\nBut what if we could come up with technology, or rather, a communal structure, that enables us to supply profitably, and still adapt to both, the difficult external factors (weather issues, remoteness, altitude, etc.) and the smaller purses of the undersupplied?\nLocation\nTowards the end of 2018, I spent 4 months in northern India, on a research project with the IIT Kharagpur.\nThe goal was to work on one of the 17 UN-defined sustainable development goals – electricity.\nWorldwide, an estimated 1 billion people have no or insubstantial access to the grid.\nSome of them live here, in the Key Monastery in the Spiti Valley at around 3500 meters altitude.\n\n\n\nThis is Tashi Gang, a village close to the Monastery. It houses around 50 people and only has road access during 3-4 months in the summer. For the rest of the time, the people rely on first aid services by helicopter, which can only be called with a working cell phone tower.\n\nThe Project\nIn an environment reliant on hydro-energy and solar (diesel transport is unreliable due to snowed-in mountain roads), over 6 months of snowy winter, frequent snowstorms, and temperatures of up to -35°C, securing the grid is hard.\nOur way to tackle the issue was to reject the in the western society very established notion of electricity as a homogenous product with centralized production and instead researched the possibilities of a predictive, self-correcting, and decentral grid.\nBy prioritizing energy usage cases, instead of a full blackout during a storm, essential functions like radio towers and hospitals could be partially powered and maybe stay functioning. The binarity of either having electricity or not would be replaced by assigned quantities and timeslots, in a collective effort to be mindful and distribute the electricity necessity-based.\nThe ultimate vision was a live predictive electricity market, where people could even earn money by selling their allotted, but not needed electricity.\nTo gauge feasibility, I conducted several psychological acceptance studies and collected data on local electricity demands.\nI simulated a typical day of electricity demand in the Key monastery and the surrounding villages and mapped out the potential to install cost-efficient smart microgrid controllers enabling such an accurate and predictive behavior.\nThe smart grid operator boxes available here in Germany cost several hundred, with installation several thousand Euros, not a feasible solution for the Indian population. Instead, we wanted to use Raspberry Pi's, which are interconnected through ethernet cables or local mesh networking.\nResearch\n\nData Collection\nBuilding a questionnaire and visiting public schools during their English Classes, I had the chance to speak to a range of teenagers, answering questions about the state of electricity in their homes, generating more data than I could have accomplished running from door to door without any skills speaking local dialects. The questionnaire was as scientific as I could make it in such a situation and geared towards finding the type and number of electric devices in the homes and estimating typical usage scenarios.\nWith a total of 145 participants from more than 6 different schools and roughly 4 different districts, all located in the Indian part of the Himalayas, the findings are as follows:\nThe participants range from 11 to 53 years, with an average of 17 years.\nThe average household has 6 members with an average of 5 smart devices. Only 2 percent of the Households had not a single smart device, but at the same time, only 42 percent had direct or indirect access to a laptop or computer. So the main body of smart devices consists of smartphones with a negligible portion of tablets.\nThe average total amount of electrical devices is around 11 electrical appliances per house.\nSubjective Quality Rating on a scale of 1 to 10:\n\nAverage quality in summer: 7.1\nAverage quality in monsoon: 5.6\nAverage quality in autumn: 7.1\nAverage quality in winter: 4.0\n\nSo, as you would expect, during winter, but also when it rains, the felt quality drops by more than 30 percent on average.\nAs for the daily supply time, the average sits at 15.1 hours out of 24, meaning the people have electricity only for 62.9 percent of the time, some, as for example the people in Diskit only have a sad 4 hours of daily access. On top of that, this estimation does not account for the snowfalls in Spiti for example, where it is not uncommon to experience 3 consecutive days of powercut or more.\nAs the Power Meter is supplied by the government, a solid 82 percent of the houses have a working power meter, if one assumes that the 13 percent who did not know whether they have a power meter, do have one, we can say that around 95% of the houses have a power meter.\nAnother goal of the studies was to find out what would incline people to be caring and sharing with the available electricity, something rather unimaginable here in Germany.\nIn general, the uninformed openness to delaying usage of electricity on a scale of 1-10 was around 5.5, with the additional information that a smart delay would cause an overall price reduction, the acceptance went up to 6.9, a good 14%. This implies that people would be a lot more inclined to give up conveniences if the benefits have a direct impact on them.\nSimulation\nAfter collecting all the estimated electric appliances of the local population, I simulated the use of 200 Solar Panels with 300Wp each, once for simultaneous electricity use, and once for mitigated electricity peaks through smart optimization and electricity usage delay.\n\n\nAlthough solar is definitely not the optimal choice here and generates lots of issues with energy storage and battery charging at negative degrees, we figured that this was the way to go for the project.\nAnd as you can see, optimizing peak usage can improve solar from generating only one-fifth of the demand in winter to about half the demand in winter. Keeping in mind here, that the added solar farm was only intended to supply additional energy and not replace existing solutions, such a \"small\" farm would be a real lifesaver there and optimize the limited space in extremely mountainous terrain.\nClosing words\nThere are to sides which the problems can be tackled: we can bring the total energy production up, by adding more panels or electricity by other means, but we can also try and bring the total demand down. This is to be achieved by investing strictly in the most energy-efficient appliances. Even replacing older, not-so-efficient appliances might sometimes be of use.\nBut ensuring efficient use is not the only way to bring down the overall demand.\nAs introduced as core ideas for the whole project, sharing and delaying will prove immensely useful. How so?\nBy sharing, we mean a concept that is already widely applied in the relevant areas. What to do in a Village that has no access to water? Will we send each household out to the faraway river to catch water for their family? Or would we join hands in a community effort to dig a central well used by everyone?\nSo, when we look at sharing electricity, how would we apply the concept? We take the appliances that consume the most energy individually and scale them up in order to increase efficiency. For example, in our case, that is most applicable to electric heating. If we manage to heat central community spaces available for everyone, naturally, fewer individual rooms will have to be heated. Similarly, one could declare a room as a public cinema, where people come together and watch Tv on a big Projector. Twice as fun, and conserving a great deal of energy again. Such ideas and others have to be realized in order to be able to match the total demand with the available supply.\nSadly, the project was never taken up further, and the situation for the people in the Spiti Valley has not improved. Two years ago, a road directly through the mountains was finished, making the population hopeful for an increase in tourism, increasing the chances of the economic viability of improved solutions.\nI spent my time there in the function of a research intern, having no real say in the realization of the project. The problem remains, and I still think that decentral solutions look to be the most promising for this specific location. Of course, the Himalayas present a bit of an extreme location, but that doesn't change the fact that people live there and have a basic human right to electricity.\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/cad/","title":"3D Modeling and CAD","description":null,"body":"3D Modeling and CAD\nDesigning 3D Objects\nWhile learning about 3D Printing, I was most intrigued by the possibility to modify and repair existing products. While there is an amazing community with lots of good and free models around, naturally I came to a point where I did not find what I was looking for readily designed. I realized this is an essential skill for effectively operating not just 3D Printers, but any productive machine really.\nSince youtube was the place I was learning all about 3D Printing, and all the people that I looked up to there were using Fusion 360 as their CAD Program that’s what I got into.\nIn hindsight, that was a pretty good choice and I am in love with the abilities parametric design gives me.\nBelow you will find some of my designs.\nThe process is something that I enjoy a lot and wish to dive into deeper.\nBy trial and error, I already learned a lot about designing specifically for 3D Printing, but I often feel that there are many aesthetic considerations in design that I am not familiar with.\nI want to broaden my general ability to design physical objects, which is something I hope to gain during my master’s.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nCheck out more of my finished designs in the Prusaprinters (now Printables) Community\n\n My Printables Profile\n\n3D Scanning and Photogrammetry\nBesides coming up with new objects, incorporating the real world is also an interest of mine.\nInteraction with real objects and environments\nIn the last few years I have played around with a few smartphone cameras and was always quite sad, that my scans were never quite accurate enough to do cool stuff with them. I could not really afford real 3D scanner and had already started cobbling together a raspberry Pi camera with a cheap TOF sensor, which is a simple, but not quite as good replacement for a laser or a lidar sensor, but then Apple came out with the first phones with accessible Lidar sensor.\nRecently, through work at the university I got access to a device with a lidar sensor and started having fun with it.\nSee some examples here:\n \n \nThis last one was scanned with just my smartphone camera. You can see that the quality is notably worse, but considering is was created with just a single, run-of-the-mill smartphone sensor, I think it is still pretty impressive and will certainly do something towards democratizing such technologies and abilities.\n \nPerspective\nWhat this section is supposed to deliver is the message that I am currently not where I want to be navigating the vast possibilities of CAD. I feel confident enough to approach small repairs around the flat with a new perspective, but I still lack technical expertise when approaching a collection composite parts, having to function together. I still have lots of projects halfdone or half-thought and one major reason is that there is no real critical exchange within my field of study.\nI want more than designing figurines or wearables.\nI want to incorporate 3D printing as a method to extend the abilities of other tools, have mechanical and electrical purposes, be foodsafe and engaging.\nI fell in love with the idea of designing a toy system, inspired by Makeways on Kickstarter, I have already started adding my own parts to their set.\nI dream of my very own 3D printed coffeecup, one that is both foodsafe and dishwasher-surviving. For that, I would have to do quite a bit of material research, but that just makes the idea so much more appealing.\nI would love finding a material composition incorporating waste to stop relying on plastics, or at least on fossile plastics.\nOnce in Berlin, I would want to talk to the people at Kaffeform producing largely compostable Coffee Cups incorporating a significant amount of old ground espresso, albeit using injection molding for their process.\nThe industry selling composite filaments is much more conservative with the percentage of non-plastic additives, because with a nozzle extrusion process there is much more to go wrong.\nStill, I would love to explore that avenue further and think there is a lot to be gained from looking at pellet printers.\nI also credit huge parts of my exploration process into local recycling to the awesome people at Precious Plastic, who I will join over the summer to learn more about their system.\nI find it hard to write anything about CAD without connecting it directly to a manufacturing process.\nAnd I believe that's a good thing. Always tying a design process to its realization, grounds the process and attaches to it some immediacy.\nFor me to become more confident in this process, I am still missing more expertise in organic shapes, so I would be happy to dig more into Blender, an awesome tool that in my mind is far too powerful to dive into it with just youtube lessons.\nSoftware that I have used and like\n\n AliceVision Meshroom\n Scaniverse\n My Sketchfab Profile\n 3D Live Scanner for Android\n\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/blog/printing/","title":"3D printing","description":null,"body":"galleries = {\ngallery = [\n{ file = \"cloning_station.jpg\", title = \"A plant propagation station now preparing our tomatoes for summer\" },\n{ file = \"elk.jpg\", alt = \"elk\", title = \"We use this to determine the flatmate of the month\" },\n{ file = \"dragon_skull_1.jpg\", alt = \"dragon skull\", title = \"A dragon's head that was later treated to glow in the dark.\" },\n{ file = \"ender2.jpg\", alt = \"ender 2\", title = \"This was my entry into a new world, the now 10 years old Ender 2\" },\n{ file = \"lithophane.jpg\", alt = \"lithophane of my Grandparents\", title = \"I made some lithophanes, a process where the composition and thickness of the material are used for creating an image.\" },\n{ file = \"prusa.jpg\", title = \"This is my second printer, a Prusa i3 MK3s.\" },\n{ file = \"vulva_candle.jpg\", alt = \"vulva on a candle\", title = \"This candle is the result of a 3D printed plastic mold that I then poured wax into.\" },\n{ file = \"pinecil.jpg\", alt = \"pinecil\", title = \"An enclosure for my portable soldering iron\" },\n{ file = \"lamp.jpg\", alt = \"a lamp design\", title = \"A lamp screen design that particularly fascinated me, it effortlessly comes from a simple 2D spiral shape.\" },\n{ file = \"prusa_enclosure.jpg\", alt = \"Prusa enclosure\", title = \"A custom-built printer enclosure made up of 3 Ikea Lack tables and around 3 kgs of plastic.\" }\n]\n}\n3D Printing\n\n\n3D Printing is more than just a hobby for me\nIn it, I see societal changes, the democratization of production, and creative possibilities. Plastic does not have to be one of our greatest environmental problems if we just choose to change our perspective and behavior toward it.\nPlastic Injection molding was one major driving force for the capitalist setting we are in now.\n3D Printing can be utilized to counteract the production of scale.\nToday, the buzzword 3D Printing is already associated with problematic societal practices, it is related to \"automatization\" and \"on-demand economy\". The technology has many aspects to be considered and evaluated and as a technology, many awesome things happen through it and on the same page it fuels developments I would consider problematic. Due to a history of patents influencing the development of the technology, and avid adoption of companies hoping to optimize production processes and margins, but also a very active hobbyist community, all sorts of projects are realized. While certainly societally explosive, there is still a lot going for 3D Printing.\n3D Printing means local and custom production. While I do not buy the whole “every household is going to have a machine that prints what they need right now at the press of a button”, I do see vast potential in 3D Printing.\nThat’s why I want to build my future on it.\nI want to design things and make them become reality.\nA 3D Printer lets me control that process from start to finish. Being able to design a thing in CAD is not enough here, I also need to be able to fully understand and control the machine that makes my thing.\nI started using a 3D Printer in early 2018, and by now I have two of them and they mostly do what I tell them to do.\nI built both of them from kits and heavily modified them. I control them via octoprint, a software that, with its open and helpful community, makes me proud to use it and taught me a lot about open-source principles. 3D Printing in the hobbyist space is a positive example where a method informs my design and I love all the areas it introduced me to.\nThrough it, I felt more at home using Linux, programming, soldering, incorporating electronics, and iteratively designing.\nI love the abilities a 3D Printer gives me and plan on using it for the recycling project.\n\nDuring the last half year, I also worked in a university context with 3D printers.\nWe conceptualized and established a \"Digitallabor\", an open space to enable all people to get into contact with innovative technologies. The idea was to create some form of Makerspace while emphasizing digital media.\nThe project is young, it started in August last year and so most of my tasks were in Workgroups, deciding on the type of machines and types of content such a project can provide value with.\nRead more about it on the Website:\nDigiLab Osnabrück\nLooking forward, I am also incredibly interested in going beyond polymers for printing. I would love to be able to be more experimental concerning the material choices, something rather hard to achieve while staying in a shared student flat. There have been great projects with ceramics and printing, which I certainly want to have a deeper look into. One project I want to highlight is the evolving cups which impressed me a lot.\nEvolving Objects\nThis group from the Netherlands is algorithmically generating shapes of cups and then printing them on a paste extruder with clay.\nThe process used is described more here:\nThe artist Tom Dijkstra is developing a paste extruder that can be attached to modify a conventional Printer and I would very much love to develop my version and experiment with printing new and old materials in such a concept printer.\nPrinting with Ceramics\nThe Paste Extruder\nAlso with regards to the recycling project, it might make sense for me to incorporate multiple machines into one and let the printer itself directly handle pellet- or paste-form. I am looking forward to expanding my horizon there and seeing what is possible.\nCups and Tableware are of course just one sample area where a backtrack toward traditional materials within modern manufacturing could make sense. There is also more and more talk of 3D Printed Clay- or Earth homes, an area where WASP is a company I look up to.\nThey built several concept buildings and structures from locally mixed earth, creating some awesome environmentally conscious structures.\nAdhering to principles of local building with locally available materials and taking into account the infamous emission problem within the building industry has several great advantages.\nAnd since such alternative solutions are unlikely to come from the industry itself, one major avenue to explore and pursue these solutions are art projects and public demonstrations.\nI want to explore all these areas and look at how manufacturing and sustainability can converge and create lasting solutions for society.\nAlso, 3D Printing is directly tied to the plans for my master's thesis, since everything I manage to reclaim, will somehow have to end up being something again. Why not print away our waste?\nNow, after a few years of tinkering, modifying and upgrading, I find that I did not change my current setup for over a year. It simply works and I am happy with it. Since my first beginner's printer, the failure rates are negligible and I have had to print really complex parts in order to generate enough waste for the recycling project.\nGradually, the mechanical system of the printer shifted from an object of care to simply a tool that I use. In the last years, hardware, but especially software has matured to a point where, at least to me, it tends to be a set-and-forget situation. On to actually making my parts and designs. Read more about that in the post about CAD\n","path":null},{"url":"http://127.0.0.1:1111/","title":"Home","description":null,"body":"\nWelcome\nto the online presence of Aron Petau.\nThis site is a collection of my thoughts and experiences.\nI hope you find something interesting here.\nThis Page is currently under construction.\nBroken links are to be expected.\n\n","path":null}] |